DOCSLIB.ORG

Response to Motion to Expedite

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response to Motion to Expedite No. 19-840 In the Supreme Court of the United States THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON, ANDY BESHEAR, THE GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETITIONERS, v. STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION KEN PAXTON KYLE D. HAWKINS Attorney General of Texas Solicitor General Counsel of Record JEFFREY C. MATEER First Assistant Attorney General MATTHEW H. FREDERICK Deputy Solicitor General LANORA C. PETTIT Assistant Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel.: (512) 936-1700 Fax: (512) 474-2697 The Court should deny the petitioners’ motions to expedite consideration of their peti- tions. The interlocutory decision below affirms the district court’s declaration that the Af- fordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, and remands for the district court to determine in the first instance whether any portion of the Affordable Care Act survives the unconstitutional mandate that Congress declared “essential” to the law’s op- eration. There may come a day when this Court’s review is appropriate, but it is after the issue of severability is decided below. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 n.7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view.”); see also Abbott v. Veasey, 137 S. Ct. 612, 613 (2017) (Roberts, C.J., respecting the denial of certiorari) (“Although there is no barrier to our review, [one] claim is in an interlocutory posture, having been remanded for further consideration. As for [that] claim, the District Court has yet to enter a final remedial or- der. The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.”). Throughout this litigation, petitioners have argued that the Affordable Care Act’s in- dividual mandate impacts no one in any way. Yet now, they claim that a decision declaring that mandate unconstitutional is so consequential to the Republic that this Court must up- end its rules, rush the briefing and argument, truncate its own consideration of the complex questions presented, and hastily render a decision. In reality, there is no emergency justi- fying that departure from the ordinary course. The district court has stayed its judgment, and that stay remains in place today. If this were really an emergency, petitioners would not have waited 16 days to bring it to this Court’s attention. See Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2085 (2017) (per curiam) (noting emergency cert peti- tion and requests for stay and expedited relief were filed one day after adverse decision below). Indeed, if petitioners truly needed their petitions to be briefed before the January 1 24 Conference, they could have filed them the day after the court of appeals issued its deci- sion. Id. Instead, they waited almost two-and-a-half weeks, and now claim a crisis. In addition, respondents are evaluating the need to file a conditional cross-petition to protect their rights and preserve all arguments in the event the Court grants the pending petitions. The deadline for any cross-petitions is March 17, 2020. See Sup. Ct. Rule 13; ac- cord Sup. Ct. Rule 12.5 (allowing conditional cross petition under ordinary schedule or 30 days from time of petition, whichever is later). Yet under petitioners’ proposed schedules, any conditional cross-petition would not be due until merits briefing is well underway. It would be inefficient to set this case on two different tracks, and any change in the March 17 deadline would prejudice respondents. The motions should be denied.1 ARGUMENT 1. The two individuals and eighteen States that are now before this Court as respond- ents brought this lawsuit following a 2017 change to the tax code that eliminated the “shared responsibility payment” associated with the so-called “individual mandate” created by Sec- tion 5000A of the Affordable Care Act. See Pub L. No. 115-97, § 11081, 131 Stat. 2054, 2092. Respondents argued that by eliminating the associated tax, Congress eliminated the statu- tory basis for this Court’s holding in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebe- lius, 567 U.S. 519, 563-75 (2012), that the individual mandate was a constitutional exercise 1 The motion of the U.S. House of Representatives should be denied for an additional and in- dependent reason: it lacks standing to participate in this case and has not properly intervened. See Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (holding that one House of a bicameral legislature lacks standing to “appeal on its own behalf a judgment invalidating a [legisla- tive] enactment”); Pet. App. 19a (questioning whether House has standing to participate in this ap- peal). 2 of Congress’s taxing power. And because the statutory text calls that mandate “essential” to the Act’s operation, it could not be severed. After all, the law includes to this day an inseverability clause—drafted in the original Affordable Care Act and left undisturbed by the 2017 Congress. 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2). The district court agreed that the mandate is un- constitutional and the rest of the Act inseverable. See generally Pet. App. 163a-231a. The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s holding on the merits that the mandate is unconsti- tutional, but it remanded for further proceedings regarding the appropriate remedy. Pet. App. 3a-4a. In particular, the Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to consider a question raised for the first time on appeal that its original remedial order was not properly “tailored to redress the plaintiff’s particular injury” as required by this Court’s recent decisions in Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018), and Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018). Pet. App. 71a. 2. The lawfulness of the Act is undoubtedly a matter of the utmost national im- portance, but the current petitions do not justify immediate, emergency review by this Court. The Court has expedited cases when there is an ongoing violation to fundamental rights such as in the school-desegregation cases, Aaron v. Cooper, 358 U.S. 27, 27 (1958) (Little Rock); Alexander v. Holmes Cty. Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969) (per curiam) (Mississippi); or when they involve important questions of executive privilege during a pending impeachment inquiry, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690 (1974); or when they impact the outcome of an election, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 1046, 1046 (2000); or when they raise time-sensitive questions of the Executive’s authority in the fields of immigration or international relations, e.g., Trump, 137 S. Ct. at 2085; Dames & Moore v. Regan, 452 U.S. 932, 933 (1981). These cases have one unifying characteristic: Expedition was 3 necessary because the Court’s failure to act promptly would lead to some concrete, irrepa- rable harm to the party seeking expedition or to an individual or entity that the party rep- resents. E.g., Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 530 n.4, 880 (1972) (advancing argument involving union election “in view of the fact that the litigation is pres- ently pending in the District Court and has not been stayed”). Petitioners point to no such concrete harm. Instead, they point only to a continued “cloud of uncertainty” that will supposedly linger over the healthcare market because the Fifth Circuit “indicat[ed] that the ACA’s insurance market reforms, or perhaps the en- tirety of the law, may well fall” with the individual mandate. House Mot. at 6 (emphasis added); see also States Mot. at 4-5. This speculation fails to show cause to expedite this case for at least three reasons. First, vague and conclusory assertions about potential uncer- tainty in the marketplace are not the type of imminent harm that justifies expedited con- sideration in this (or any other) Court over the objection of an adversely affected party. Cf. United Steel Workers of Am. v. United States, 361 U.S. 39, 41 (1959) (per curiam) (examin- ing “findings that the continuation of [an ongoing steel] strike would imperil the national health and safety” on expedited basis). Second, the district court’s declaratory judgment has been stayed pending appeal since December 30, 2018, specifically to address the “great uncertainty” that “everyday Americans would otherwise face” pending appeal. Pet. App. 162a. That stay remains in place today; there is no currently operative remedy. And, third, the long-term viability of the Act is fundamentally uncertain regardless of anything to do 4 with this case. As petitioners are well aware, Congress has considered efforts to amend or repeal large sections of the Act continuously for the last decade.2 3. Until now, the Act’s defenders have argued that because the tax associated with the individual mandate is set at $0, the provision does nothing to anyone, thereby depriving respondents of standing to sue. Moreover, they have asserted, if the mandate were uncon- stitutional, any relief must be tailored to save as much of the statute as possible. Now that the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional and ordered the district court to tailor a remedy, the Act’s defenders insist that the constitutionality of the individual mandate is vitally important to the functioning of the healthcare market.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of West Virginia Office of the Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
    State of West Virginia Office of the Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (304) 558-2021 Attorney General Fax (304) 558-0140 August 1, 2016 The Honorable Regina A. McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environment Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov Re: Request for extension of time to comment on the proposed rule, Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,940 (June 30, 2016), docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0033, by the undersigned States and state agencies Dear Administrator McCarthy: As the chief legal officers and officials of the States and state agencies that obtained the stay of the "Clean Power Plan" from the United States Supreme Court, we urge you to immediately extend the comment period on the proposed rule titled, Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,940 (June 30, 2016) (the "CEIP"). The comment period should be extended for at least sixty days following the termination of the Power Plan stay. Of course, if the Power Plan does not survive judicial review, the CEIP should then simply be withdrawn. Several reasons support this extension request. First, extending the comment deadline is required by the stay. Under established precedent, the stay order "halt[s] or postpone[s]" the Power Plan, including "by temporarily divesting [the Power Plan] of enforceability." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 428 (2009). In other words, the stay "suspend[s] the source of authority to act" by "hold[ing] [the Rule] in abeyance." Id. As the
    [Show full text]
  • In the Letter
    Attorneys General of Louisiana, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia September 30, 2020 The Honorable A. Mitchell McConnell The Honorable Charles Schumer Majority Leader Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate 317 Russell Senate Office Building 322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 [email protected] [email protected] The Honorable Lindsey Graham The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Chairman Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary 290 Russell Senate Office Building 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Support for the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States Dear Senators: We, the undersigned Attorneys General of our States, write to urge the Senate to promptly hold a hearing on and confirm the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Barrett is a distinguished legal scholar and an exceptional appellate judge with a track record of interpreting the Constitution according to its text and original public meaning. As we are sure your review of her exemplary record will reveal, she has the qualifications, experience, and judicial philosophy to be an outstanding Associate Justice. We are aware that there are those who believe the Senate should not hold a hearing on the President’s nominee. In response, we quote excerpts from a 2016 letter sent to the Senate by the Attorneys General of California, New York, and 17 other states: “The Constitution clearly sets out the process for filling a Supreme Court vacancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Governor's Commission to Rebuild Texas
    EYE OF THE STORM Report of the Governor’s Commission to Rebuild Texas John Sharp, Commissioner BOARD OF REGENTS Charles W. Schwartz, Chairman Elaine Mendoza, Vice Chairman Phil Adams Robert Albritton Anthony G. Buzbee Morris E. Foster Tim Leach William “Bill” Mahomes Cliff Thomas Ervin Bryant, Student Regent John Sharp, Chancellor NOVEMBER 2018 FOREWORD On September 1 of last year, as Hurricane Harvey began to break up, I traveled from College Station to Austin at the request of Governor Greg Abbott. The Governor asked me to become Commissioner of something he called the Governor’s Commission to Rebuild Texas. The Governor was direct about what he wanted from me and the new commission: “I want you to advocate for our communities, and make sure things get done without delay,” he said. I agreed to undertake this important assignment and set to work immediately. On September 7, the Governor issued a proclamation formally creating the commission, and soon after, the Governor and I began traveling throughout the affected areas seeing for ourselves the incredible destruction the storm inflicted Before the difficulties our communities faced on a swath of Texas larger than New Jersey. because of Harvey fade from memory, it is critical that Since then, my staff and I have worked alongside we examine what happened and how our preparation other state agencies, federal agencies and local for and response to future disasters can be improved. communities across the counties affected by Hurricane In this report, we try to create as clear a picture of Harvey to carry out the difficult process of recovery and Hurricane Harvey as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • April 26, 2021 the Honorable Dick
    April 26, 2021 The Honorable Dick Durbin The Honorable Chuck Grassley Chair Ranking Member Senate Judiciary Committee Senate Judiciary Committee 711 Hart Senate Building 135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler The Honorable Jim Jordan Chair Ranking Member House Judiciary Committee House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn Building 2142 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee The Honorable Andy Biggs Chair Ranking Member Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Security 2138 Rayburn Building 2142 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, Chair Nadler, and Ranking Member Jordan: We, the undersigned attorneys general, strongly urge you to pass the EAGLES Act, which reauthorizes and expands the work of the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) to provide research-based threat assessment training. The EAGLES Act was introduced after the mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida and establishes a national program to prevent targeted school violence by facilitating evidence-based collaboration between state and federal agencies. The Act’s safe school initiative contains research and training components, allows dissemination of evidence-based practices, and authorizes NTAC to consult with state and local educational, law enforcement, and mental health officials to develop research and training. It is unfortunate we have to turn to the threat assessment expertise of the Secret Service in order to keep educators and students safe at school, but gun violence in schools has become all too commonplace.
    [Show full text]
  • AG Alliance 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting Final Agenda * All Times EDT
    AG Alliance 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting Final Agenda * All times EDT THURSDAY 7/16: 11:30am – 2:30pm EDT (2 panels) • 11:30am – 12:30pm EDT: COVID-19 Impacts and Adaptations by Innovators and Industry, Consumer Warnings and State Government Oversight Roles (60 min) Moderator: Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General, Oregon Attorney General’s Office o Lev Kubiak, Vice President and Deputy Chief Security Officer, Pfizer o Haley Schaffer, Senior Legal Counsel, 3M o Speaker TBD, Lowe’s Summary: Price gouging laws typically apply to prices of essential items needed in an emergency. Price gouging occurs when a seller increases the price of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Hear how Attorneys General and industry continue working together to identify and stop this practice during the pandemic. The internet has driven a dramatic increase in the expansion of the counterfeit drug market. Learn about the low- risk/high-reward nature of this criminal industry, and how regulators are stepping up to combat it. • 1pm-2:30pm EDT: COVID-19 Price Gouging Issues (90 min) Moderator: William Tong, Attorney General, Connecticut o Clayton Friedman, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP o Paul Singer, Senior Counsel for Public Protection, Texas AGO o Victoria Butler, Director, Consumer Protection Division, Florida AGO o Nicholas Trutanich, US Attorney, District of Nevada Summary: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, Attorneys General have been on the watch for price gouging. As a result, several large companies have become subject to Attorney General investigations, and others have been named defendants in class action lawsuits brought by unhappy consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Women's Walk Oral Histories Directed by Michele Welch
    UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY Utah Valley University Library George Sutherland Archives & Special Collections Oral History Program Utah Women’s Walk Oral Histories Directed by Michele Welch Interview with Melissa (Missy) Larsen by Anne Wairepo December 7, 2018 Utah Women’s Walk TRANSCRIPTION COVER SHEET Interviewee: Melissa Wilson Larsen Interviewer: Anne Wairepo Place of Interview: George Sutherland Archives, Fulton Library, Utah Valley University Date of Interview: 7 December 2018 Recordist: Richard McLean Recording Equipment: Zoom Recorder H4n Panasonic HD Video Camera AG-HM C709 Transcribed by: Kristiann Hampton Audio Transcription Edit: Kristiann Hampton Reference: ML = Missy Larsen (Interviewee) AW= Anne Wairepo (Interviewer) SD = Shelli Densley (Assistant Director, Utah Women’s Walk) Brief Description of Contents: Missy Larsen describes her experiences growing up in Salt Lake City, Utah during the time her dad, Ted Wilson, was the mayor. She also explains her own experiences serving in student government during her school years. Missy talks about being a young wife and mother while working as the press secretary for Bill Orton. She further explains how she began her own public relations company, Intrepid. Missy details how she helped Tom Smart with publicity during the search for his daughter Elizabeth Smart who was abducted from her home in 2002. She talks about her position as chief of staff to Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and her involvement in developing the SafeUT app, which is a crisis intervention resource for teens. She concludes the interview by talking about the joy she finds in volunteering her time to help refugees in Utah. NOTE: Interjections during pauses or transitions in dialogue such as uh and false starts and stops in conversations are not included in this transcript.
    [Show full text]
  • August 16, 2017 the Honorable Roger Wicker Chairman Senate
    August 16, 2017 The Honorable Roger Wicker Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation The Honorable Brian Schatz Ranking Member Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Honorable Marsha Blackburn Chairman House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce The Honorable Michael Doyle Ranking Member House of Representative Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce RE: Amendment of Communications Decency Act Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, Chairman Blackburn, and Ranking Member Doyle: In 2013, Attorneys General from 49 states and territories wrote to Congress, informing it that some courts have interpreted the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) to render state and local authorities unable to take action against companies that actively profit from the promotion and facilitation of sex trafficking and crimes against children. Unfortunately, nearly four years later, this problem persists and these criminal profiteers often continue to operate with impunity. The recent news highlighting the potential complicity of online classified-ad company Backpage.com in soliciting sex traffickers’ ads for its website once again underscores the need 1850 M Street, NW to expand, not limit, the ability of all law-enforcement agencies to fight sex Twelfth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 326-6000 http://www.naag.org/ trafficking.1 The undersigned Attorneys General once again respectfully request that the United States Congress amend the CDA to affirm that state, territorial, and local authorities retain their traditional jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those who facilitate illicit acts and endanger our most vulnerable citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • VAWA”) Has Shined a Bright Light on Domestic Violence, Bringing the Issue out of the Shadows and Into the Forefront of Our Efforts to Protect Women and Families
    January 11, 2012 Dear Members of Congress, Since its passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) has shined a bright light on domestic violence, bringing the issue out of the shadows and into the forefront of our efforts to protect women and families. VAWA transformed the response to domestic violence at the local, state and federal level. Its successes have been dramatic, with the annual incidence of domestic violence falling by more than 50 percent1. Even though the advancements made since in 1994 have been significant, a tremendous amount of work remains and we believe it is critical that the Congress reauthorize VAWA. Every day in this country, abusive husbands or partners kill three women, and for every victim killed, there are nine more who narrowly escape that fate2. We see this realized in our home states every day. Earlier this year in Delaware, three children – ages 12, 2 ½ and 1 ½ − watched their mother be beaten to death by her ex-boyfriend on a sidewalk. In Maine last summer, an abusive husband subject to a protective order murdered his wife and two young children before taking his own life. Reauthorizing VAWA will send a clear message that this country does not tolerate violence against women and show Congress’ commitment to reducing domestic violence, protecting women from sexual assault and securing justice for victims. VAWA reauthorization will continue critical support for victim services and target three key areas where data shows we must focus our efforts in order to have the greatest impact: • Domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault are most prevalent among young women aged 16-24, with studies showing that youth attitudes are still largely tolerant of violence, and that women abused in adolescence are more likely to be abused again as adults.
    [Show full text]
  • August 25, 2021 the Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General
    MARK BRNOVICH DAVE YOST ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL August 25, 2021 The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Re: Constitutionality of Illegal Reentry Criminal Statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 Dear Attorney General Garland, We, the undersigned attorneys general, write as chief legal officers of our States to inquire about your intent to appeal the decision in United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, No. 3:20-cr- 00026-MMD-WGC, ECF. 60 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2021). As you know, in that decision, Chief Judge Du found unconstitutional 8 U.S.C. § 1326, the statute that criminalizes the illegal reentry of previously removed aliens. We appreciate that you recently filed a notice of appeal, preserving your ability to defend the law on appeal. We now urge you to follow through by defending the law before the Ninth Circuit and (if necessary) the Supreme Court. We ask that you confirm expeditiously DOJ’s intent to do so. Alternatively, if you do not intend to seek reversal of that decision and instead decide to cease prosecutions for illegal reentry in some or all of the country, we ask that you let us know, in writing, so that the undersigned can take appropriate action. Section 1326, as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, is unremarkable in that it requires all aliens—no matter their race or country of origin—to enter the country lawfully. In finding the law racially discriminatory against “Latinx persons,” Chief Judge Du made some truly astounding claims, especially considering that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mexico has more legal permanent residents in the United States, by far, than any other country.1 Chief Judge Du determined that, because most illegal reentrants at the border are from Mexico, the law has an impermissible “disparate impact” on Mexicans.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Insight 2020
    ELECTION INSIGHT 2020 “This isn’t about – yeah, it is about me, I guess, when you think about it.” – President Donald J. Trump Kenosha Wisconsin Regional Airport Election Eve. 1 • Election Insight 2020 Contents 04 … Election Results on One Page 06 … Biden Transition Team 10 … Potential Biden Administration 2 • Election Insight 2020 Election Results on One Page 3 • Election Insight 2020 DENTONS’ DEMOCRATS Election Results on One Page “The waiting is the hardest part.” Election results as of 1:15 pm November 11th – Tom Petty Top Line Biden declared by multiple news networks to be America’s next president. Biden’s Pennsylvania win puts him over 270. Georgia and North Carolina not yet called. Biden narrowly leads in GA while Trump leads in NC. Trump campaign seeks recounts in GA and Wisconsin and files multiple lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results in states where Biden has won. Two January 5, 2021 runoff elections in Georgia will determine Senate control. Senator Mitch McConnell will remain Majority Leader and divided government will continue, complicating the prospects for Biden’s legislative agenda, unless Democrats win both runoff s. Democrats retain their House majority but Republicans narrow the Democrats’ margin with a net pickup of six seats. Incumbents Losing Reelection • Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) • Rep. Harley Rouda (D-CA-48) • Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM-3) • Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) • Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL-26) • Rep. Max Rose (D-NY-11) • Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) • Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL-27) • Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK-5) • Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • May 25, 2021 the Honorable Charles Schumer Majority Leader United
    May 25, 2021 The Honorable Charles Schumer The Honorable A. Mitchell McConnell Majority Leader Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate 322 Hart Senate Office Building 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senators: The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It guarantees our natural God-given right to defend our lives, our families, our property, and our freedom. The confirmation of David Chipman to head the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) is an attack on that right and on the millions of law-abiding gun owners across the country. As state Attorneys General, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect the rights and freedoms of our constituents. These responsibilities force us to stand in opposition to Mr. Chipman’s nomination and in support of our constituents’ rights. Firearms are far beyond a hobby or a passion. They are a part of our national heritage and everyday life for tens of millions of Americans, particularly those of us who live in rural areas. We use them to hunt, protect livestock, and provide peace of mind when law enforcement may be miles away. This is why Mr. Chipman’s past affiliation with anti-gun organizations and his extreme positions on commonly owned firearms is so concerning to us as attorneys general and why he is unfit to be confirmed as head of the ATF.
    [Show full text]
  • February 22, 2012 Mr. Larry Page Chief Executive Officer Google, Inc
    February 22, 2012 Mr. Larry Page Chief Executive Officer Google, Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Dear Mr. Page: We, the undersigned Attorneys General, write to express our strong concerns with the new privacy policy that Google announced it will be adopting for all of its consumer products. Until now, users of Google’s many products could use different products in different ways, expecting that information they provide for one product, such as YouTube, would not be synthesized with information they provide for another product, such as Gmail and Maps. The new policy forces these consumers to allow information across all of these products to be shared, without giving them the proper ability to opt out. Google’s new privacy policy is troubling for a number of reasons. On a fundamental level, the policy appears to invade consumer privacy by automatically sharing personal information consumers input into one Google product with all Google products. Consumers have diverse interests and concerns, and may want the information in their Web History to be kept separate from the information they exchange via Gmail. Likewise, consumers may be comfortable with Google knowing their Search queries but not with it knowing their whereabouts, yet the new privacy policy appears to give them no choice in the matter, further invading their privacy. It rings hollow to call their ability to exit the Google products ecosystem a “choice” in an Internet economy where the clear majority of all Internet users use – and frequently rely on – at least one Google product on a regular basis. This invasion of privacy will be costly for many users to escape.
    [Show full text]